NoQ added a comment. In D64680#1584130 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680#1584130>, @Charusso wrote:
> Here is an example of the mentioned use-after-free by pointer-escaping as an > argument: > > https://llvm.org/reports/scan-build/report-DeclBase.cpp-getFromVoidPointer-0-1.html#EndPath Not sure how is this false positive related to that report, but this false positive looks super weird and i'd love to debug it more. P.S. I think you should attach the report to Phabricator directly, as the link will expire as soon as these reports get regenerated. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:56-58 + // If this checker does not model the allocation. + DoNothing, + // Reference to allocated memory. ---------------- Charusso wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > We already have `Escaped`, it's the same thing in practice. > It is more strict than `Escaped`, also it made for the purpose of > `PSK_EscapeOther` to force out we lost the entire pointer and do not make > false warnings of use-after-free. How exactly is it more strict? I.e., what warnings are getting suppressed by you that aren't going to be suppressed if you use `Escaped` instead? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
